home

It's Official: Dems Co-Own The Iraq Debacle

Via Meteor Blades, the Dems proved themselves liars when they said they would not fund the war without timelines:

Congress approved $70 billion Wednesday for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bitter finish for majority Democrats who tried to force a change in President Bush's war policy.

The House's 272-142 vote also sent the president a $555 billion catchall spending bill that combines the war money with money for 14 Cabinet departments.

Bush and his Senate GOP allies forced the Iraq money upon anti-war Democrats as the price for permitting the year-end budget deal to pass and be signed. But other Democrats were eager to avoid being seen as not supporting troops who are in harm's way — and avoid weeks of bashing by Bush for failing to provide that money.

"This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war.

Steny and Rahmbo have their wish - Iraq is officially no longer a campaign issue for 2008.

Personally, I will not be working to elect Dems in Congress this cycle. It is obvious that the only office that matters now for ending the war is the Presidency.

Rubber Stamp Democrats. Pelosi and Reid are now on my ignore list. You will not be hearing about them from me anymore.

< Obama's Important Advantage: The Media | Huckabee's Weight Loss >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What makes it official now (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:55:55 PM EST
    that wasn't true in the Spring?

    Funding issues are done for the Bush Presidency (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:57:52 PM EST
    on Iraq.

    Nothing left to fight about.

    Parent

    You intend to say nothing (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 06:59:54 PM EST
    the next time he asks for $100B?

    Parent
    When will that happen? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:45:32 PM EST
    Maybe not Bush (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    Chances are good that the next president will be asking for big money to fund the Iraq mess in one way or another.

    Parent
    My guess: June (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:57:47 PM EST
    Right before the conventions.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:03:09 PM EST
    And? What do you expect to happen?

    This was the last chance until 2009.

    Parent

    Not worth the effort, you think? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:42:38 PM EST
    I'm not inclined to be that easy on the Democrats.

    Parent
    Memorial Day weekend. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:44:24 PM EST
    That's what happened in 2007.

    Parent
    Not going to happen (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    It is obvious that the only office that matters now for ending the war is the Presidency.

    What's the matter with Congress?  Why are they "endorsing endless war?"

    Disappointing, but expected (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by DA in LA on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:19:53 PM EST
    I've totally washed by hands of this crowd.

    Really, really pathetic display of governing.  I will only vote for Dems at the state level this time around.  At this point the Democratic party has to earn my vote back and they are far, far away.

    I'm a liberal, which means there is no major party for me.  The Dems have made that point loud and clear.  So, I will not vote for them - even if Huckabee is the republican candidate.  I'm tired.  I'm done.  It's not just this vote, but an accumulation.  

    I guess I'm off to the Green Party.

    Uh Huh (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by rdandrea on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:31:22 PM EST
    "You will not be hearing about them from me anymore"

    Right.  As if you can help yourself.

    Make the democrats defend their vote. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    Has anyone polled the deomocrats that won in 06 because they opposed the war to see how many of these democrats voted for the continuation of funding of the war and if they did vote to fund the war ask them also why did you vote this way when the only reason you won in 06 was because you opposed the war and you were on the same page with the majority of the americans who also opposed the war.  I would like to see the results.

    Simple question: (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:28:22 PM EST
    "Since winning the election, what have you done to end the war in Iraq?"

    Parent
    So would I. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lora on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:26:36 PM EST
    Let's find out what they've done.

    Parent
    Kudos to Herb Kohl. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:57:54 PM EST


    Yep. They co-signed the original blank check, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Geekesque on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    and have made good on their original promise.

    This is the last bite at the apple.  Even if there is another funding vote in late summer, so what?  Bush can shovel around funds for the remaining 5 months.

    The only thing that could make this more disillusioning is to have a Presidential matchup of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, wherein each tries to adopt the other's position.

    that would be (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by illissius on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    hilariously depressing.

    Parent
    Cost of Retaliation to 9/11/2001 Attacks (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by billengelke on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:16:13 PM EST
    As of December 20th, 2007

    Total World Population = 6.77 billion people
    Divided by 19 total people effectively attacking USA - 9/11/2001
    1 of 356,315,789 people considered effective  threat to USA (worldwide)
    303,636,444 total USA population -vs- 1 of 356,315,789
    0.85 people estimated as effective threat to USA (domestic)

    Essence:

    The wars in Afghanistan & Iraq have been & are being conducted based upon the premise that the USA is under sustained ongoing significant terrorist threats, both foreign & domestic.

    Total Domestic Casualties - 9/11/2001 Attack = 2,973 people

    Total American deaths - Iraq War - 3,895
    Total Non-Fatal American Casualties - 24,965 from hostile actions
    25,406 from non-hostile activities = 50,371 Total American casualties
    Total American lives exhausted in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack - Iraq = 50,371

    Total American deaths - Afghanistan War - 398
    Total Non-Fatal American Casualties - 1,840
    Total American lives exhausted in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack - Afghanistan = 2,238

    Total Casualties Iraq/Afghanistan wars in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack - 52,609

    Total American lives exhausted per victim of 9/11/2001 attack in Iraq/Afghanistan = 18

    Essence :

    For each victim of the 9/11/2001 attack, 18 Americans either lost their lives or were permanently disabled in retaliation to the attack bringing the total of American Casualties as a result of the 9/11/2001 attack to 55,582
    of which 52,609 casualties were a direct effect of the US retaliation led by President Bush & Vice-President Cheney with a consistent policy approval rating of less than 40% by the American People.

    Revision - Statistical (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by billengelke on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:29:12 PM EST
    54,266 Total American Lives Exhausted in Retaliation to 9/11/2001 Attack - Iraq

    56,504 Total Casualties Iraq/Afghanistan wars in retaliation to 9/11/2001 attack

    19 Total American lives exhausted per victim of 9/11/2001 attack in Iraq/Afghanistan

    For each victim of the 9/11/2001 attack, 19 Americans either lost their lives or were permanently disabled in retaliation to the attack bringing the total of American Casualties as a result of the 9/11/2001 attack to  59,477 of which 56,504 casualties were a direct effect of the US retaliation led by President Bush & Vice-President Cheney with a average policy approval rating of less than 40% by the American People over the wars durations to this time, December, 2007.

    Parent

    So your theory (1.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    is that the US should do nothing until all 300 million of us are dead??

    You know, you couldn't make this stuff up

    Parent

    Which Dem. primary candidate do you (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    anticipate would do the most to extract the U.S. from Iraq the fastest if elected?  Any why?

    None of these: (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    The troop-withdrawal amendment, offered by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), failed on a 24 to 71 vote. None of the four Democrats running for president -- Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) -- returned from the campaign trail for the vote, which failed for the third time this year to clear a 60-vote hurdle imposed by Republicans.


    Parent
    probably Richardson. (none / 0) (#5)
    by illissius on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 07:21:07 PM EST
    Kucinich (none / 0) (#11)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:18:43 PM EST
    Kucinich is relatively impervious to people telling him he "can't" do what he plans to do, going all the way back to when he refused to let Cleveland be blackmailed and instead let the city go into default.

    Parent
    Tied (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 10:56:21 PM EST
    with Gravel and Paul.

    Parent
    they all should be primaried. hopefully (none / 0) (#15)
    by seabos84 on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:35:13 PM EST
    we'll at least be able to gather around 10 or 50 and get rid of them.

    but - you right on 1 thing

    I will do NOTHING for any federal dems, except edwards if he makes it.

    rmm.

    They are effectively one party now. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:01:32 AM EST